What's more important?

[wilts rover]

Mick, we all came to the conclusion you are very stupid a long time ago - but that hasn't stopped you posting so we point out your mistakes and try and educate you. It may take a while but its for the good of the community.

Yes I can understand perfectly stright forward statements - I can also understand that when they say different things they contradict one another. Therefore you cannot believe one if you believe the other. Sorry if this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but I shall keep trying, I am used to talking to 3-year olds.

I didnt stupidly state that - I took it from your, errr, stupid post.

[IC1967]

Right. You've asked for it.

I challenge you to show 10 statements I've made that are contradictory. You've been stalking me for a long time now so it shouldn't be too difficult for you.

You don't have to do them all at once. According to you there are some in this thread. Should be quite easy for you. The only condition I as ask is that the statements are not taken out of context.

Think carefully before you begin. Your recent efforts have been laughable.

Now get on with it man. Once you fail I will require an immediate abject apology.

You better get this right or it won't just be me that thinks you're irredeemably stupid.

[IC1967]

Can you hear it? What's that I hear you say? The deafening silence from Wilts. No surprise there then.

Right. Moving on. My excellent plan is more of a medium to long term plan. What to do in the short term I hear you ask. Well once again I've come up with the solution.

We form an international task force and we contribute one ship to it. We form a blockade of the ports off Libya, say 20 miles out from the coast. Under international law if a boat or ship is not seaworthy then legally it can be turned around and sent back to port. We stop every boat or ship and inspect it. We escort the ones that aren't seaworthy back to port.

I'd be very surprised if any of the boats or ships would be found to be seaworthy so they would all be sent back to port.

Sorted.

[wilts rover]

Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. Your contradiction of yourself in this thread is there for all to see. You cannot both claim to support Nigel Farage who says he will let migrants from Libya into Britain - and claim that you will not let any migrants out of Libya, and shoot the ones who are trying. See different. Contradictory. Got it. Good.

I am very disappointed in you if your response to me showing to the forum how ridiculous your posts are is an accusation that I am stalking you. If you cannot compete in a proper robust debate then I suggest you find another forum. However as you are such a sensitive soul I will reduce my posts on your threads - but reserve the right to counter your stupidity.

[IC1967]

Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. Your contradiction of yourself in this thread is there for all to see. You cannot both claim to support Nigel Farage who says he will let migrants from Libya into Britain - and claim that you will not let any migrants out of Libya, and shoot the ones who are trying. See different. Contradictory. Got it. Good.

I am very disappointed in you if your response to me showing to the forum how ridiculous your posts are is an accusation that I am stalking you. If you cannot compete in a proper robust debate then I suggest you find another forum. However as you are such a sensitive soul I will reduce my posts on your threads - but reserve the right to counter your stupidity.

Pathetic. You've delayed your response because you've spent ages trying to find contradictions and you can't find any. So you come up with a crap excuse that you're not going spend any more time than you have to answering my posts. The other readers of the forum will be able to work it out. They know you would jump at the chance to try and prove me wrong. You can't, so you come up with that crap excuse.

Of course I can support Nige even if I don't totally agree with everything he says. When did saying you were 'broadly' in agreement with someone mean you agreed with everything they say? If you support Ed Milliband does that mean you agree with everything he says? Of course not. Any dimwit knows that, but not you apparently. In the next breath so there was absolutely no confusion I said 'He's not quite as tough as me but his idea could be workable'. Let me explain. That means I think he is on the right lines but I am more hard line.  So you see it is possible to be in broad agreement with someone whilst holding slightly different views.

Do you get it? It should be quite easy to understand. So absolutely no contradiction there.

So come on. Let's have another one. No more crap excuses. Just get on with it man or issue an immediate abject apology.

[Orlandokarla]

Mick, our resident professional gambler, racing tipster extraordinaire... How do you reconcile that with your role as outspoken vegan, and forum champion of PETA?

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing/

You quoted half that website to at me not too long ago, having the nerve to condemn me for being so "cruel" as to train and ride the horses I spend thousands of dollars a year rescuing. People rarely adopt green or unbroken horses, and I can only save more if I am able to make room for them. Typically, whilst you are denouncing me as an animal abuser, you are (supposedly) making a living out of their exploitation. What's more, you encourage others to do the same, bragging of your successes in an activity that is completely incompatible with your professed principles.
So there it is, as requested, you pompous hypocrite!

You asked for evidence of your contradictory nature, well there's one, which is a perfect example of the smug, self-righteous drivel that your troll of a persona posts.

[IC1967]

Mick, our resident professional gambler, racing tipster extraordinaire... How do you reconcile that with your role as outspoken vegan, and forum champion of PETA?

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing/

You quoted half that website to at me not too long ago, having the nerve to condemn me for being so "cruel" as to train and ride the horses I spend thousands of dollars a year rescuing. People rarely adopt green or unbroken horses, and I can only save more if I am able to make room for them. Typically, whilst you are denouncing me as an animal abuser, you are (supposedly) making a living out of their exploitation. What's more, you encourage others to do the same, bragging of your successes in an activity that is completely incompatible with your professed principles.
So there it is, as requested, you pompous hypocrite!

You asked for evidence of your contradictory nature, well there's one, which is a perfect example of the smug, self-righteous drivel that your troll of a persona posts.

No contradiction there I'm afraid. You must try harder. In fact I'd be quite happy for anyone on the forum to accept the challenge and help Wilts out. He obviously needs some help.

I seem to remember you enjoy hunting. Anyone that hunts in my opinion is a barbarian. I seem to remember you think a fictitious God has given man dominion over animals. The fact that you believe this says a lot about your lack of intelligence.

It is perfectly feasible to be broadly in agreement with PETA without agreeing with everything they say. Do people who vote for Dave Cameron agree with everything he says? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that agrees with him on everything. Does this mean they won't support him? Of course not.

There are some aspects of horse racing that are cruel but overall horses get treated far better than most humans. See I am a big picture sort of person. There are some aspects of the way the government runs the country that are cruel but overall having a government makes life better for the majority of people. You wouldn't ban government just because some people get treated cruelly by it would you?

So get a grip. Stop hunting animals and believing in a fictitious God that you believe has given you dominion over animals. Try using your brain for a change and try to work things out for yourself without having to rely on fairy stories in the Bible for your belief system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html

[BobG]

Touch. Into. Touche.

Get in!

BobG

[wilts rover]

OK so that's:

Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain

Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you

Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough

Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum

Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them

................ and that's without even trying

[BobG]

I reckon you're wrong on Contradiction 4 Wilts He can't have enough time to support ANY football club can he? I mean, it's not just the vast, immeasurable hours he spends on here, but think of all those businesses he runs and all that support he gives to other people. The mind boggles tbh just how busy he has to be. No. He can't support any football team. There's just not enough time in the day for him to do that AS WELL!


Bob

[IC1967]

OK so that's:

Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain

Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you

Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough

Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum

Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them

................ and that's without even trying

You've tried your best and what you have come up with is absolutely pathetic. All you tried to do is take things out of context and then twist the meanings. Well, this is going to be very easy.

Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain

Stopping migrants coming to Britain! What's that supposed to mean. If we take what you've said literally and in the context of your statement you appear to be saying I am against all migrants coming to Britain. Totally wrong. I am against uncontrolled immigration. I am actually for immigration. In fact I've done a few posts stating this. If you were up to date on the forum you'd see that I've done a post within the last week supporting immigration. I've even gone so far as to say if it came to uncontrolled immigration or no immigration I'd be for uncontrolled immigration. You are totally unbelievable. I even said this on the 'Time to cut the crap' thread in response to you!!! 'I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.'
We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.' Can't you remember? Ffs.

Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you

Hahaha! Evidence man. Where is it. You have never made me look silly. I've made you look silly. This post will be another example of this. I don't continually ask you to respond to me. You are confusing this with me asking you pertinent questions that you hardly ever answer and with me asking you to clarify what you've said because I've been unable to understand what you are on about (as I'm sure have other forum members).

Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough

I've already answered this. Why are you re-hashing an alleged contradiction that has already been swiftly debunked when Orlando put it to me? I suspect you must be struggling to find 'contradictions'.

Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum

Hahahaha! That is not a contradiction. It's a statement. I think you're trying to say that (it's always so hard with you to know what you're on about) that because I'm a Leeds fan I can't also support Rovers. I've also previously dealt with this. Also it is obvious to anyone I am not a troll. I'm the voice of reason. It is possible you know to support your home town team and also another Premier League class club. Many people 'support' two teams. I have even previously stated that if Leeds played Rovers and the winner got promoted I'd support Rovers. So no contradiction there (I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Man Utd fan).

Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them

You've tried to make 2 contradictions out of one. Pathetic. See my previous answers and posts on immigration which show the complete opposite to what you are trying to portray. I'll say it again just in case in might get through this time. I am pro immigration. I am anti uncontrolled immigration. If it came to a choice between uncontrolled immigration and no immigration I would opt for uncontrolled immigration.

So no contradictions whatsoever in your little list.

Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back. Take down your post and I promise to immediately take down mine to save you further embarrassment. All I ask is an immediate abject apology. I can't be fairer than that.

The daft thing is that it is you that has been contradicting himself. Here's what you said earlier in the thread -'Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. ' You weren't going to offer up any contradictions. Then what do you do. You offer up what you thought were 5 contradictions that weren't. You couldn't make it up.

[wilts rover]

Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win

Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing

Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0

Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)

Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=251475.30

as is BJW on the 'I've changed my mind' thread

So there you are, 10 Contradictions (and 25 minutes of my life checking them that I wont get back again). Whatever weasel words you have to explain your way out of them are totally irrelevant, you asked for Contradictions. You got them. Got it. Good.  Your apology is awaited.

[BobG]

It's reallyvery instructive how The Muppet consistently, regularly, abjectly, distorts a word or a phrase that someone else has said, in a vain effort to bolster his own puerile argument. That example above, that you quoted Wilts, is absolutely typical. Takes something I said, and simply by a slight change of tense makes out that I said TTIP has 'been' introduced, or, being generous, is 'being' introduced. Even my lad Alex, and he's not yet 14, knows neither of those are true. So  Mick, beaten by a 13 year old. Are you finding your level at long, long last? Misquoting can lead to very serious consequences you know. I guess you should look up what they might be. If you are able, of course.

BobG

[IC1967]

It's reallyvery instructive how The Muppet consistently, regularly, abjectly, distorts a word or a phrase that someone else has said, in a vain effort to bolster his own puerile argument. That example above, that you quoted Wilts, is absolutely typical. Takes something I said, and simply by a slight change of tense makes out that I said TTIP has 'been' introduced, or, being generous, is 'being' introduced. Even my lad Alex, and he's not yet 14, knows neither of those are true. So  Mick, beaten by a 13 year old. Are you finding your level at long, long last? Misquoting can lead to very serious consequences you know. I guess you should look up what they might be. If you are able, of course.

BobG

Hahahaha! You actually said in your post and I quote -'And surprise, surprise, it's being introduced by the Tories.' Are you for real? Above you accuse me of changing tense and give 2 examples - 'has been introduced or, being generous, is being introduced'. I can't get my breath at your total idiocy. You said it's being introduced. We can elongate that to it is being introduced. 'It's' is short for 'it is' in case you didn't know. As an aside, I'd appreciate it if you stopped using the word abject or an of it's derivatives. I like to think it's a word I've made my own. You should only use it in an apology you offer to me.

So you have said it is being introduced. I accused you of saying is being introduced. I didn't use the word 'it' because it was obvious what I was on about. Are you seriously saying I changed a word and tense to completely change the meaning of what you said? Any fool can see I quoted you correctly.

You never did answer the question 'how can something that hasn't been agreed yet and indeed may never be agreed be introduced?' Correct me if I'm wrong but 'is being' is not the future tense. If an agreement is reached this will be in the future. Therefore it's impossible for it to have been introduced already. You claimed it is being introduced.

You've been caught bang to rights and made a complete fool of yourself.

Get an abject apology sorted and we'll try and overlook your crass stupidity. Get on with it man. You know you should.

IC1967

[IC1967]

Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win

Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing

Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0

Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)

Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.
Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=251475.30

as is BJW on the 'I've changed my mind' thread

So there you are, 10 Contradictions (and 25 minutes of my life checking them that I wont get back again). Whatever weasel words you have to explain your way out of them are totally irrelevant, you asked for Contradictions. You got them. Got it. Good.  Your apology is awaited.

I do despair for you. Is that really the best you could come up with? Look. The offer still stands. Take down your daft posts and I'll take down my responses to save you further embarrassment.

Right, time to do another number on you.

Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win


Your point is? You must try harder to make yourself clear. I assume you are trying to say that up until a fortnight ago I was saying that a Labour victory would be bad for the country and that now because I want them to win that would be good for the country. Therefore I have contradicted myself. Have I understood you correctly? Once again you are trying to twist things. I have never said a Labour victory would be good for the country. I've always said it would be bad. I want them to win even though it would be bad for the country short term because within 2 years they would be unelectable for a generation. So absolutely no contradiction there.

Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing

No way. I have never said that raising the national debt is a good thing. Evidence man. Where is it? Don't bother looking. You won't find any. So absolutely no contradiction there.

Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0

You what? Evidence man. Where is it? Until you provide the relevant statements I allegedly made then I'm going to have to chalk this one up as another abject failure to provide a contradiction.

Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)

You what? You're not making sense again. Jeremy was sacked by the BBC end of. If I had contradicted myself on this issue I would initially have said he'd been sacked and then later said that he hadn't been sacked. I always took the line that he'd been sacked. So again you've not come up with anything.

Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting

My record is intact. I have a 100% record for answering all questions that are thrown at me (unless they are silly). Your record is lamentable. You must still be waiting because your questions whilst seeming perfectly sensible to you have been deemed silly by me. I'll say it again in the vain hope it might get through. All questions are answered. The ones that aren't are silly. No one comes close to having my 100% record. So yet another abject failure at showing a contradiction.

So that's 10 alleged contradictions and not one of them valid.

Look. Take down your daft posts. The longer they're up, the more people will see them. Rescue what is left of your reputation. I promise to take down my responses.

You were obviously not thinking straight when you slandered me. I'll let you off. Just one condition. An immediate abject apology. Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better for it.

[BobG]

It's just SO damn funny writing about our Resident Idiot an then sitting back, knowing he's gonna froth at the mouth, seeing the whole series of posts it always provokes, and, so very, very happily not being bothered by his shite actualy appearing on my screen. Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.

BobG

[Orlandokarla]

No contradiction there I'm afraid. You must try harder. In fact I'd be quite happy for anyone on the forum to accept the challenge and help Wilts out. He obviously needs some help.
I seem to remember you enjoy hunting. Anyone that hunts in my opinion is a barbarian. I seem to remember you think a fictitious God has given man dominion over animals. The fact that you believe this says a lot about your lack of intelligence.
It is perfectly feasible to be broadly in agreement with PETA without agreeing with everything they say. Do people who vote for Dave Cameron agree with everything he says? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that agrees with him on everything. Does this mean they won't support him? Of course not.
There are some aspects of horse racing that are cruel but overall horses get treated far better than most humans. See I am a big picture sort of person. There are some aspects of the way the government runs the country that are cruel but overall having a government makes life better for the majority of people. You wouldn't ban government just because some people get treated cruelly by it would you?
So get a grip. Stop hunting animals and believing in a fictitious God that you believe has given you dominion over animals. Try using your brain for a change and try to work things out for yourself without having to rely on fairy stories in the Bible for your belief system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html

Wilts is doing just fine; the only difficulty he may have is that since you spend such a disproportionate amount of your life on here, he has a lot of s*** to sift through.

Odd that you believe that you have a pugnacious debating style; I'd call it juvenile. Case in point, as per usual, right off the bat you're trying to muddy the waters by going off on wild tangents, in a pathetic attempt to irritate, and distract from your inadequate response. Hunting, religion etc.... Completely irrelevant to the topic. You'd lose marks for that in English language/literature at elementary school level. Of course you end with an insult, and one that is, as is par for the course with you, completely irrelevant, which you would be aware of were your comprehension skills not so inadequate.
As I said, juvenile.

I enjoy hunting very much. There's a lot of satisfaction to be had in eating what you have caught/killed/grown with your own two hands, especially when you know you're doing your bit for the ecology of the area. It's a primal sense of self-sufficiency that I wouldn't expect a pampered little city-dweller like you to understand. For the record, I do so 100% legally, usually on my own land, and I don't ask for your approval or pardon.

I know you must struggle to keep track with the sheer volume of drivel you post, but the whole God argument was another one of your infantile attempts at trolling and misdirection. You'd asked why somebody might think they have the right to use animals for food etc, and I responded that somebody might mention God granting them dominon over the animals, were they of a religious persuasion. Numerous anti-religious jibes followed, despite the fact I had never claimed those opinions to be my own. I have pointed this out to you on at least 3 occasions now.
Besides, I suggest it would be better to be a deluded follower of a fabricated religion that offers some degree of comfort and moral structure to live by, than a miserable atheist, terrified by the knowledge that their short life is ultimately meaningless, with nothing but oblivion awaiting you at the end.
I also offered up evolution, but that was too logical, so you conveniently ignored the point in preference of attacking Christianity.

You agreed with every word PETA said not so long ago, until it became inconvenient and contradictory to your professed values. You even quoted the link above to me in your post! LMFAO! You agreed with it 100% until I applied to something you enjoy.

Governments and politicians have F*** all to do with it, but keep scurrying around grasping at straws, it's rather amusing.

Here's a challenge for you Mr. 100%. Here's a question you can't/won't answer properly, ie without completely missing the point entirely, or changing the subject - How can you possibly condemn somebody who spends thousands of dollars and hours every year rescuing horses from the glue factory, for riding horses, when you, and people like you, actively participate in the industry that often leads to them needing to be saved by people like me in the first place?
(In case you're wondering, the answer is "because I'm a hypocrite, and often contradictory.")
The irony is that I mostly ride them so they can be adopted, not for fun. Anyone who has ever done it will tell you that riding abused former racehorses is not something you would ever dream of doing for fun. It's dangerous, and hard going, but necessary, for their sakes. If you could see the state these poor bas**rds are usually in, physically and/or mentally, you'd never watch a race again. It's not a great deal more humane than bullfighting, IMHO.
It'll be easier to just accept you're a hypocrite and not embarrass yourself, but feel free to further display your argue-for-argument's-sake nature.

You agreed with PETA that keeping pets was wrong, FFS, but horse racing is acceptable? Using animals for entertainment or work is wrong, so you say, but horse racing is OK?
YOU stated that even riding a horse I had saved was wrong, yet riding them for sport and exploiting them for money and killing them is OK? Even watching them is immoral, according to your previous statements.
Just admit it, you're a hypocrite. You're blatantly contradicting yourself; at least be a man about it.

Claiming that you see 'the big picture,' is simply more evidence of your stubborn refusal to ever admit you're beaten. You say parts are cruel, but they are treated well on the whole, up until they are of no use anymore. When I pointed out that my animals are treated similarly until they are slaughtered, you condemned me for it. Isn't that contradictory?
You're wrong, you're backed into a corner, and you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Your response offers no kind of rebuttal or counter-point whatsoever.

You're a prime example of a hypocrite. You may choose to buy items that are free of animal ingredients, eat a vegan diet, and pat yourself on the back, telling yourself how you are saving the planet, but if you bought them with money earned at the races, then you're no better than the average man on the street who doesn't give a flying f***. That said, unlike you, he's not a hypocrite.

I'll tell you what, you stop making money by perpetuating a disgusting, animal abusing industry that offers nothing of value to society, besides abused animals and gambling addicts, and I'll agree to lock away the rifle, deal?

Epic fail on the religious trolling (again), btw, and I'm still laughing at you for quoting the Daily Mail.

[Orlandokarla]

Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.

BobG

Firstly, I don't know why you're calling him Mick, since Mick IC1967 has catagoricaly denied ever using any other username, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Hang on, didn't he claim to answer every question, not necessarily answer every question truthfully?
Secondly, I wish you hadn't said that. Now I feel like I need a shower. 

[IC1967]

Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.

BobG

Firstly, I don't know why you're calling him Mick, since Mick IC1967 has catagoricaly denied ever using any other username, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Hang on, didn't he claim to answer every question, not necessarily answer every question truthfully?
Secondly, I wish you hadn't said that. Now I feel like I need a shower. 

I've answered this question many times but just for you I will answer it again. 100% record still intact.

I am IC1967.

[IC1967]

No contradiction there I'm afraid. You must try harder. In fact I'd be quite happy for anyone on the forum to accept the challenge and help Wilts out. He obviously needs some help.
I seem to remember you enjoy hunting. Anyone that hunts in my opinion is a barbarian. I seem to remember you think a fictitious God has given man dominion over animals. The fact that you believe this says a lot about your lack of intelligence.
It is perfectly feasible to be broadly in agreement with PETA without agreeing with everything they say. Do people who vote for Dave Cameron agree with everything he says? You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that agrees with him on everything. Does this mean they won't support him? Of course not.
There are some aspects of horse racing that are cruel but overall horses get treated far better than most humans. See I am a big picture sort of person. There are some aspects of the way the government runs the country that are cruel but overall having a government makes life better for the majority of people. You wouldn't ban government just because some people get treated cruelly by it would you?
So get a grip. Stop hunting animals and believing in a fictitious God that you believe has given you dominion over animals. Try using your brain for a change and try to work things out for yourself without having to rely on fairy stories in the Bible for your belief system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029149/Why-people-believe-God-likely-lower-IQ.html

Wilts is doing just fine; the only difficulty he may have is that since you spend such a disproportionate amount of your life on here, he has a lot of s*** to sift through.

Odd that you believe that you have a pugnacious debating style; I'd call it juvenile. Case in point, as per usual, right off the bat you're trying to muddy the waters by going off on wild tangents, in a pathetic attempt to irritate, and distract from your inadequate response. Hunting, religion etc.... Completely irrelevant to the topic. You'd lose marks for that in English language/literature at elementary school level. Of course you end with an insult, and one that is, as is par for the course with you, completely irrelevant, which you would be aware of were your comprehension skills not so inadequate.
As I said, juvenile.

I enjoy hunting very much. There's a lot of satisfaction to be had in eating what you have caught/killed/grown with your own two hands, especially when you know you're doing your bit for the ecology of the area. It's a primal sense of self-sufficiency that I wouldn't expect a pampered little city-dweller like you to understand. For the record, I do so 100% legally, usually on my own land, and I don't ask for your approval or pardon.

I know you must struggle to keep track with the sheer volume of drivel you post, but the whole God argument was another one of your infantile attempts at trolling and misdirection. You'd asked why somebody might think they have the right to use animals for food etc, and I responded that somebody might mention God granting them dominon over the animals, were they of a religious persuasion. Numerous anti-religious jibes followed, despite the fact I had never claimed those opinions to be my own. I have pointed this out to you on at least 3 occasions now.
Besides, I suggest it would be better to be a deluded follower of a fabricated religion that offers some degree of comfort and moral structure to live by, than a miserable atheist, terrified by the knowledge that their short life is ultimately meaningless, with nothing but oblivion awaiting you at the end.
I also offered up evolution, but that was too logical, so you conveniently ignored the point in preference of attacking Christianity.

You agreed with every word PETA said not so long ago, until it became inconvenient and contradictory to your professed values. You even quoted the link above to me in your post! LMFAO! You agreed with it 100% until I applied to something you enjoy.

Governments and politicians have F*** all to do with it, but keep scurrying around grasping at straws, it's rather amusing.

Here's a challenge for you Mr. 100%. Here's a question you can't/won't answer properly, ie without completely missing the point entirely, or changing the subject - How can you possibly condemn somebody who spends thousands of dollars and hours every year rescuing horses from the glue factory, for riding horses, when you, and people like you, actively participate in the industry that often leads to them needing to be saved by people like me in the first place?
(In case you're wondering, the answer is "because I'm a hypocrite, and often contradictory.")
The irony is that I mostly ride them so they can be adopted, not for fun. Anyone who has ever done it will tell you that riding abused former racehorses is not something you would ever dream of doing for fun. It's dangerous, and hard going, but necessary, for their sakes. If you could see the state these poor b*****ds are usually in, physically and/or mentally, you'd never watch a race again. It's not a great deal more humane than bullfighting, IMHO.
It'll be easier to just accept you're a hypocrite and not embarrass yourself, but feel free to further display your argue-for-argument's-sake nature.

You agreed with PETA that keeping pets was wrong, FFS, but horse racing is acceptable? Using animals for entertainment or work is wrong, so you say, but horse racing is OK?
YOU stated that even riding a horse I had saved was wrong, yet riding them for sport and exploiting them for money and killing them is OK? Even watching them is immoral, according to your previous statements.
Just admit it, you're a hypocrite. You're blatantly contradicting yourself; at least be a man about it.

Claiming that you see 'the big picture,' is simply more evidence of your stubborn refusal to ever admit you're beaten. You say parts are cruel, but they are treated well on the whole, up until they are of no use anymore. When I pointed out that my animals are treated similarly until they are slaughtered, you condemned me for it. Isn't that contradictory?
You're wrong, you're backed into a corner, and you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Your response offers no kind of rebuttal or counter-point whatsoever.

You're a prime example of a hypocrite. You may choose to buy items that are free of animal ingredients, eat a vegan diet, and pat yourself on the back, telling yourself how you are saving the planet, but if you bought them with money earned at the races, then you're no better than the average man on the street who doesn't give a flying f***. That said, unlike you, he's not a hypocrite.

I'll tell you what, you stop making money by perpetuating a disgusting, animal abusing industry that offers nothing of value to society, besides abused animals and gambling addicts, and I'll agree to lock away the rifle, deal?

Epic fail on the religious trolling (again), btw, and I'm still laughing at you for quoting the Daily Mail.

Wilts is not doing fine. He has failed abysmally to find even one contradiction. You say there is a lot to sift through. Surely this should make it much easier for him as apparently I contradict myself all the time. Bit of a contradiction there if you don't mind me saying.

Let's get one thing straight. You enjoy hunting very much. I wonder if the poor animal enjoys it as much as you do. It's very simple. You are a barbarian. I'd love to have the chance to hunt you. I doubt you'd enjoy it very much then.

Look. It's very simple. From everything you've said it's obvious you believe in God. You mentioned God and him giving dominion over animals. That's just a pathetic excuse you use so you can torture and butcher these poor creatures. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows there is no God. You believe in him because it suits your twisted moral compass and because you lack the intelligence to think about the subject logically.

As far as PETA goes I'll have one more attempt at explaining my position in the vain hope it might get through your thick skull this time. I broadly agree with PETA's views. I don't agree with everything they say. I have never said I agree with them 100%. It's possible to support an organisation without agreeing with everything they say you know. We have a general election coming up you know. Do you seriously think that when people vote for a party, they agree with everything that party says 100%? Get a grip.

You ask -'How can you possibly condemn somebody who spends thousands of dollars and hours every year rescuing horses from the glue factory, for riding horses, when you, and people like you, actively participate in the industry that often leads to them needing to be saved by people like me in the first place?



I condemn you because you have proved yourself to be a barbarian. You're not 'saving' them. You're purchasing them for your own enjoyment and no doubt a healthy profit when you sell them on to other animal abusers.

I do think keeping pets is wrong. Keeping pets is so prevalent in our societies that it would take many decades to change this. In the meantime I would encourage everyone not to have a pet. If there is no demand then eventually there will be no supply.

I have said some aspects of horse racing are cruel. However as a big picture sort of person I approve of horse racing. Horses used for horse racing are on the whole much better treated than the vast majority of humans on the planet.

I think that's all your drivel sorted.

100% record still intact.

Get in.

[IC1967]

It's just SO damn funny writing about our Resident Idiot an then sitting back, knowing he's gonna froth at the mouth, seeing the whole series of posts it always provokes, and, so very, very happily not being bothered by his shite actualy appearing on my screen. Froth away Mick lad if thats what gets you off.

BobG

Hahahaha! You're the one that's been providing the laughs lately. You used to be respected around here. Not anymore. You are mistaking my answering every question for frothing at the mouth. I'm proud of my 100% record and will maintain it (unlike you that hardly ever answers a question). I'll ask again. How can it be that a trade agreement is being introduced by the Tories when it hasn't even been agreed on yet?

Come on. Answer the question. If you do you may restore a small part of your battered reputation.

IC1967

[BobG]

Ha ha ha Orlando! I apologise to you profusely and unreservedly. I'm not apologising to the Resident Idiot though. I'm sure that's got to be the reason why he behaves in such a juvenile manner. What other pleasure can he be getting given the life we see and he's told us that he leads? It would explain the longevity of his stupidity too. It's gotta be the only way he knows to get himself off. Gotta be. See the evidence: right after your thoughtful and intelligent post Karla, I see there's THREE from the Resident Idiot. Three FFS! Why would anyone write three posts when one would do unless he was thrapping himself off each time? Told you before that the Idiot is a w**ker.

BobG

[IC1967]

There are enough countries to take a small percentage of the people in, and it then wouldn't hurt much as the immigration would be spread out, they are human beings, to try and escape a country as they have they must have been very desperate.
If you were one of these people you would hope somebody could help you and your family feel safe, of course a country of our size can't take massive amounts in, but each country should take some.

Why aren't these people escaping to other African countries? This would save them a perilous sea journey. By going to another African country they are far more likely to be culturally similar and it would be far easier for them to return to their own countries when the warring is over.

I'll tell you why. It's because our standard of living is a big pull. Well that's not a good enough reason I'm afraid.

[IC1967]

There are enough countries to take a small percentage of the people in, and it then wouldn't hurt much as the immigration would be spread out, they are human beings, to try and escape a country as they have they must have been very desperate.
If you were one of these people you would hope somebody could help you and your family feel safe, of course a country of our size can't take massive amounts in, but each country should take some.

Why aren't these people escaping to other African countries? This would save them a perilous sea journey. By going to another African country they are far more likely to be culturally similar and it would be far easier for them to return to their own countries when the warring is over.

I'll tell you why. It's because our standard of living is a big pull. Well that's not a good enough reason I'm afraid.

True if they are desperate then you would expect them to go to the nearest safe place, i don't agree with us taking in immigrants all over the place because our country is not big enough to support a massive influx.
Though when i see people struggling my natural instinct is to try and help, i think the world as a whole, not just Europe is big enough and financially secure enough to help it's fellow human beings in a time of crisis.

The problem is that though they are desperate they want to come to a country which they believe is a land of milk and honey. So to some extent they are also economic migrants. If we open the doors they will flood in and we will send the message that we'll take them all in. This is not practical especially in the UK where we are already full to busting. At the moment we are taking in 300,000 people a year. This is not sustainable. The last thing we need is millions of people in war torn countries coming as well.

They should stay in Africa\Middle East. History has shown that if you are a refugee close to your home country you are far more likely to go back to your own country. We should help by helping neighbouring countries cope with the influx off refugees. It's not as though they haven't got plenty of spare land.

Sorted.

[wilts rover]

Apologies to everyone concerned for continuing the diatribe with the muppet but he appears to require his answers to be marked. I will do it two threads:

Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain

Stopping migrants coming to Britain! What's that supposed to mean. If we take what you've said literally and in the context of your statement you appear to be saying I am against all migrants coming to Britain. Totally wrong. I am against uncontrolled immigration. I am actually for immigration. In fact I've done a few posts stating this. If you were up to date on the forum you'd see that I've done a post within the last week supporting immigration. I've even gone so far as to say if it came to uncontrolled immigration or no immigration I'd be for uncontrolled immigration. You are totally unbelievable. I even said this on the 'Time to cut the crap' thread in response to you!!! 'I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.'
We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.' Can't you remember? Ffs.

What a load of rubbish - see back in this thread - Wilts 1  Mick 0

Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you

Hahaha! Evidence man. Where is it. You have never made me look silly. I've made you look silly. This post will be another example of this. I don't continually ask you to respond to me. You are confusing this with me asking you pertinent questions that you hardly ever answer and with me asking you to clarify what you've said because I've been unable to understand what you are on about (as I'm sure have other forum members).

See this thread and FAO IC1967 thread,  (I can't help it of you are thick btw I make my questions simple for you) - Wilts 2 Mick 0

Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough

I've already answered this. Why are you re-hashing an alleged contradiction that has already been swiftly debunked when Orlando put it to me? I suspect you must be struggling to find 'contradictions'.

No you haven't, you only confirmed it - Wilts 3 - Mick 0

Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum

Hahahaha! That is not a contradiction. It's a statement. I think you're trying to say that (it's always so hard with you to know what you're on about) that because I'm a Leeds fan I can't also support Rovers. I've also previously dealt with this. Also it is obvious to anyone I am not a troll. I'm the voice of reason. It is possible you know to support your home town team and also another Premier League class club. Many people 'support' two teams. I have even previously stated that if Leeds played Rovers and the winner got promoted I'd support Rovers. So no contradiction there (I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Man Utd fan).

I support Doncaster Rovers, end of. You are a troll. Thats a two pointer to me - Wilts 5 Mick 0

Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them

You've tried to make 2 contradictions out of one. Pathetic. See my previous answers and posts on immigration which show the complete opposite to what you are trying to portray. I'll say it again just in case in might get through this time. I am pro immigration. I am anti uncontrolled immigration. If it came to a choice between uncontrolled immigration and no immigration I would opt for uncontrolled immigration.

Yes I missed that, thanks for pointing it, two contradictions, thats another two points - Wilts 7 Mick 0
So no contradictions whatsoever in your little list.

Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back. Take down your post and I promise to immediately take down mine to save you further embarrassment. All I ask is an immediate abject apology. I can't be fairer than that.

The daft thing is that it is you that has been contradicting himself. Here's what you said earlier in the thread -'Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. ' You weren't going to offer up any contradictions. Then what do you do. You offer up what you thought were 5 contradictions that weren't. You couldn't make it up.

Your contribution to proving point No 2 is welcome and have I missed the threads where people are laughing at me?

[wilts rover]

I do despair for you. Is that really the best you could come up with? Look. The offer still stands. Take down your daft posts and I'll take down my responses to save you further embarrassment.

Right, time to do another number on you.

Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win


Your point is? You must try harder to make yourself clear. I assume you are trying to say that up until a fortnight ago I was saying that a Labour victory would be bad for the country and that now because I want them to win that would be good for the country. Therefore I have contradicted myself. Have I understood you correctly? Once again you are trying to twist things. I have never said a Labour victory would be good for the country. I've always said it would be bad. I want them to win even though it would be bad for the country short term because within 2 years they would be unelectable for a generation. So absolutely no contradiction there.

My point is its a contradiction. As you have only confirmed - Wilts 8 Mick 0

Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing

No way. I have never said that raising the national debt is a good thing. Evidence man. Where is it? Don't bother looking. You won't find any. So absolutely no contradiction there.

From the FAO IC1967 thread: You lefties really make my piss boil with your totally incorrect view of spending under the Tories. The last 2 Tory governments have doubled the national debt when in office! What more proof do you want that they are not the mean minded so and so's that you lefties try to portray - Wilts 9 - Mick 0

Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0

You what? Evidence man. Where is it? Until you provide the relevant statements I allegedly made then I'm going to have to chalk this one up as another abject failure to provide a contradiction.

What a pathetic answer, the evidence is in that thread:

Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.

No it's not. Like I said just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.

Wilts 10 Mick 0

Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)

You what? You're not making sense again. Jeremy was sacked by the BBC end of. If I had contradicted myself on this issue I would initially have said he'd been sacked and then later said that he hadn't been sacked. I always took the line that he'd been sacked. So again you've not come up with anything.

So you still dont realise that you cant sack someone who doesnt work for you - a point away for extra stupidity there. Wilts 11 Mick -1

Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting

My record is intact. I have a 100% record for answering all questions that are thrown at me (unless they are silly). Your record is lamentable. You must still be waiting because your questions whilst seeming perfectly sensible to you have been deemed silly by me. I'll say it again in the vain hope it might get through. All questions are answered. The ones that aren't are silly. No one comes close to having my 100% record. So yet another abject failure at showing a contradiction.

Where is my answer to that question? It's a clear question, it's a simple question - where are those words in Bob's statement? That's 5 times now you have refused to answer it so along with proving how contrary you are I am verging on calling you a liar.

So that's 10 alleged contradictions and not one of them valid.

All of them proven and even more than proven, by my basic maths I make it, Wilts 12 - Mick -1

Look. Take down your daft posts. The longer they're up, the more people will see them. Rescue what is left of your reputation. I promise to take down my responses.

You were obviously not thinking straight when you slandered me. I'll let you off. Just one condition. An immediate abject apology. Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better for it.

Oh I want to keep them up Mick - it's not me looking silly. And when you have the time to answer that question...

[IC1967]

Apologies to everyone concerned for continuing the diatribe with the muppet but he appears to require his answers to be marked. I will do it two threads:

Contradiction No 1 - supporting Farage to let migrants into Britain - but stopping migrants from reaching Britain

Stopping migrants coming to Britain! What's that supposed to mean. If we take what you've said literally and in the context of your statement you appear to be saying I am against all migrants coming to Britain. Totally wrong. I am against uncontrolled immigration. I am actually for immigration. In fact I've done a few posts stating this. If you were up to date on the forum you'd see that I've done a post within the last week supporting immigration. I've even gone so far as to say if it came to uncontrolled immigration or no immigration I'd be for uncontrolled immigration. You are totally unbelievable. I even said this on the 'Time to cut the crap' thread in response to you!!! 'I totally disagree with you that uncontrolled immigration is the biggest single problem we are facing. Makes you sound like a racist. I'd rather have uncontrolled immigration than no immigration. On the whole immigration is good for the country.'
We do have an ageing population you know that needs paying for. Immigrants help the economy more than they damage it and make it easier for us to increase standards of living for everyone. I do wish it was controlled though. Not knowing how many are coming in every year makes it impossible to plan the future infrastructure needed to accommodate a growing population.' Can't you remember? Ffs.

What a load of rubbish - see back in this thread - Wilts 1  Mick 0

Contradiction No 2 - accusing me of stalking when I show how silly you are - and then continually asking me to reply to you

Hahaha! Evidence man. Where is it. You have never made me look silly. I've made you look silly. This post will be another example of this. I don't continually ask you to respond to me. You are confusing this with me asking you pertinent questions that you hardly ever answer and with me asking you to clarify what you've said because I've been unable to understand what you are on about (as I'm sure have other forum members).

See this thread and FAO IC1967 thread,  (I can't help it of you are thick btw I make my questions simple for you) - Wilts 2 Mick 0

Contradiction No 3 - being a vegetarian and interested in animal welfare - yet supporting a business that weekly sends dozen of healthy animals to be slaughtered (many of which end up in the human food chain) because they cant run fast enough

I've already answered this. Why are you re-hashing an alleged contradiction that has already been swiftly debunked when Orlando put it to me? I suspect you must be struggling to find 'contradictions'.

No you haven't, you only confirmed it - Wilts 3 - Mick 0

Contradiction No 4 - you are a Leeds United supporter trolling a Doncaster Rovers forum

Hahahaha! That is not a contradiction. It's a statement. I think you're trying to say that (it's always so hard with you to know what you're on about) that because I'm a Leeds fan I can't also support Rovers. I've also previously dealt with this. Also it is obvious to anyone I am not a troll. I'm the voice of reason. It is possible you know to support your home town team and also another Premier League class club. Many people 'support' two teams. I have even previously stated that if Leeds played Rovers and the winner got promoted I'd support Rovers. So no contradiction there (I wouldn't be surprised if you're a Man Utd fan).

I support Doncaster Rovers, end of. You are a troll. Thats a two pointer to me - Wilts 5 Mick 0

Contradiction No 5 - you oppose migration to Britain - but are (alledgedly) happy to take money off them by renting out your (alledge) houses to them

You've tried to make 2 contradictions out of one. Pathetic. See my previous answers and posts on immigration which show the complete opposite to what you are trying to portray. I'll say it again just in case in might get through this time. I am pro immigration. I am anti uncontrolled immigration. If it came to a choice between uncontrolled immigration and no immigration I would opt for uncontrolled immigration.

Yes I missed that, thanks for pointing it, two contradictions, thats another two points - Wilts 7 Mick 0
So no contradictions whatsoever in your little list.

Look. When people read your post and my response they are going to be laughing behind your back. Take down your post and I promise to immediately take down mine to save you further embarrassment. All I ask is an immediate abject apology. I can't be fairer than that.

The daft thing is that it is you that has been contradicting himself. Here's what you said earlier in the thread -'Mick, there is absolutely no way I am spending any more time than I have to answering your posts. ' You weren't going to offer up any contradictions. Then what do you do. You offer up what you thought were 5 contradictions that weren't. You couldn't make it up.

Your contribution to proving point No 2 is welcome and have I missed the threads where people are laughing at me?

It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.

[IC1967]

I do despair for you. Is that really the best you could come up with? Look. The offer still stands. Take down your daft posts and I'll take down my responses to save you further embarrassment.

Right, time to do another number on you.

Contradiction No 6 - since you came back on this forum you have been saying how bad a Labour election victory would be for the country - 2 weeks ago you said you wanted them to win


Your point is? You must try harder to make yourself clear. I assume you are trying to say that up until a fortnight ago I was saying that a Labour victory would be bad for the country and that now because I want them to win that would be good for the country. Therefore I have contradicted myself. Have I understood you correctly? Once again you are trying to twist things. I have never said a Labour victory would be good for the country. I've always said it would be bad. I want them to win even though it would be bad for the country short term because within 2 years they would be unelectable for a generation. So absolutely no contradiction there.

My point is its a contradiction. As you have only confirmed - Wilts 8 Mick 0

Contradiction No 7 - you attack the Labour Party for raising the National Debt - but appear to think that the Tory Party raising the National Debt is a good thing

No way. I have never said that raising the national debt is a good thing. Evidence man. Where is it? Don't bother looking. You won't find any. So absolutely no contradiction there.

From the FAO IC1967 thread: You lefties really make my piss boil with your totally incorrect view of spending under the Tories. The last 2 Tory governments have doubled the national debt when in office! What more proof do you want that they are not the mean minded so and so's that you lefties try to portray - Wilts 9 - Mick 0

Contradiction No 8 - you pointed out how historical events could be used to predict future outcomes - and then later in the same thread said that historical events could not be used to predict future outcomes
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=246708.0

You what? Evidence man. Where is it? Until you provide the relevant statements I allegedly made then I'm going to have to chalk this one up as another abject failure to provide a contradiction.

What a pathetic answer, the evidence is in that thread:

Get in!
The latest YouGov/Sun opinion poll shows – CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 9%, UKIP 14%. No opposition starting from such a low base and with such an unpopular leader has gone on to win a general election.

No it's not. Like I said just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.

Wilts 10 Mick 0

Contradiction No 9 - you contributed an outpouring of verbal diarrhoea to an 8 page argument, with inside knowledge, on the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson - before being suprised that as a freelance tv presenter he wasn't actually employed by them, therefore couldn't be sacked (and is apparently discussing new shows)

You what? You're not making sense again. Jeremy was sacked by the BBC end of. If I had contradicted myself on this issue I would initially have said he'd been sacked and then later said that he hadn't been sacked. I always took the line that he'd been sacked. So again you've not come up with anything.

So you still dont realise that you cant sack someone who doesnt work for you - a point away for extra stupidity there. Wilts 11 Mick -1

Contradiction No 10 - you claim to have answered 100% of all questions on here - I am still waiting

My record is intact. I have a 100% record for answering all questions that are thrown at me (unless they are silly). Your record is lamentable. You must still be waiting because your questions whilst seeming perfectly sensible to you have been deemed silly by me. I'll say it again in the vain hope it might get through. All questions are answered. The ones that aren't are silly. No one comes close to having my 100% record. So yet another abject failure at showing a contradiction.

Where is my answer to that question? It's a clear question, it's a simple question - where are those words in Bob's statement? That's 5 times now you have refused to answer it so along with proving how contrary you are I am verging on calling you a liar.

So that's 10 alleged contradictions and not one of them valid.

All of them proven and even more than proven, by my basic maths I make it, Wilts 12 - Mick -1

Look. Take down your daft posts. The longer they're up, the more people will see them. Rescue what is left of your reputation. I promise to take down my responses.

You were obviously not thinking straight when you slandered me. I'll let you off. Just one condition. An immediate abject apology. Get on with it man. You'll feel so much better for it.

Oh I want to keep them up Mick - it's me that's looking silly. And when you have the time to answer that question...

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

[wilts rover]

It's me you should be abjectly apologising to and yes you have missed the threads where people are laughing at you.

Evidence man, where is it? There are seven threads on here from three different contributors, which ones are laughing at me?

[wilts rover]

Fair enough. Keep them up. I did offer.

What question do you want answering? I promise to answer it (as long as it's not silly).

This one:

No one is saying it has already been introduced you muppet. It is planned to be introduced by the Tories. Fact. Stop talking wet

BobG is saying it's been introduced. Read his drivel.

Now get an abject apology sorted pronto.

I cant be bothered to read all the way through Mick, can you help me and point to Bob's post where he says TTIP has been introduced please? That's been introduced, not being introduced btw.